James Morrow: Scott Morrison must put Labor on defence over nuclear power

Scott Morrison cannot let the energy debate slip away from him and allow Labor and the Greens to define it right before an election, writes James Morrow.

And so the Prime Minister heads off to Glasgow with his base annoyed at him, the left thumping the table for more, and a PowerPoint slide deck that makes some very big claims about soil and carbon capture and government “investments” that somehow, magically, come at no cost to the taxpayer.

If only there was a way for Scott Morrison to unite his party, split the left, and do something to cut ­emissions using proven, existing ­technology.

Like, for example, come back from COP26 and announce that after talking it over with his fellow world leaders, it was time Australia used some of that uranium we’ve been selling to everyone else to fire up some carbon-free atomic energy at home.

Morrison has been understandably keen to avoid the fight over ­nuclear, saying Labor won’t move on the moratorium against it so it’s not worth the bother.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison should not be letting the Greens define the energy issue. Picture: Supplied

But to duck the issue and make “net zero” all about old-school renewables is to let Labor – and, far worse, the Greens – define the battleground on the issue.

Think of it this way: Short of closing every coal mine in the country ­tomorrow, most left-leaning voters will never be satisfied by anything the Prime Minister does when it comes to the environment.

Instead, they will be galvanised by Labor’s call for legislated climate ­targets and pull the debate further away from the centre, ignoring the energy debacles that have played out across the industrialised world when governments  tried  to  decarbonise too fast.

For the government, the threat is that everyone from the ABC to billionaire greenies looking to sell the power from their solar and wind farm investments will work to create an “it’s time” consensus that will see the Coalition portrayed as dangerously behind the times.

Thus even though the government needs to pick up seats from Labor, a non-nuclear net zero strategy leaves the Prime Minister forever playing catch-up.

If Scott Morrison made Labor answer questions on nuclear, Anthony Albanese would be out of touch with half his party. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

At the same time, without nuclear on the table, the Coalition will be split between green-tinged moderates in seats like Wentworth and North Sydney (many of whom also hold investment portfolios poised to do well off a government-driven renewables boom) and conservatives who feel like they’ve been sold out to corporates who post on LinkedIn about their carbon footprints.

Some may drift to Labor or various ironically-named “Independents For” candidates; others to the re-formed Liberal Democrats or Clive Palmer or Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.

Embracing nuclear, or even just the question, would not just bring the conservative base back into the fold. It would turn the entire debate around and force Labor, whose voters, polls show, are actually pretty split on the issue, on to the back foot to answer the question “Why not?”

Scott Morrison goes to Glasgow with big problems in his climate plan and the potential policy saviour in Nuclear energy going ingnored.

The proposition is simple.

We have the uranium, Australia is hardly Iran when it comes to proliferation, and it would be a bit rich for Labor to suddenly baulk at what would admittedly be a hugely expensive nation building project – particularly one that could generate the power for industry with nil emissions.

And given the profile of Anthony Albanese’s own inner-west Sydney seat of Grayndler, where after preferences the Greens won one vote for every two taken by Labor in 2019, the nuclear question would see the opposition leader forced into the role of inner-city leftie out of touch with half of his party and the nation.

What the government needs to ­realise is that far from lost, the ­nuclear fight is already half-won.

The acquisition of nuclear subs as part of the AUKUS arrangement went down largely without protest, and Labor was forced to mostly play along.

Now the question should be “why not on shore civilian nuclear power, too?”

The debate would force Labor and the Greens into the same dilemma they were in under John Howard: do we chase the votes of the inner-city kombucha classes, or stick with our traditional working class base?

But even if the facts are on his side, the calendar isn’t.

Mr Morrison should not assume that the climate wars will eventually come right for him if he plays a long enough game.

There’s not enough time, if his plan is to drop an early budget in March or April and then go to an election, to wait for the winds to change in his favour.

Monday’s Newspoll would have been a wakeup call.

The security in place ahead of the COP26 summit in Glasgow, Scotland. Picture: Getty Images

As, too, would a journalist’s question at his big net zero announcement press conference, asking why he thinks he will be the first prime minister to survive this issue when it has blown up half a dozen of his predecessors.

The Prime Minister’s answer that he “brought our government ­together on this” will not be enough if he can’t also bring enough voters over the line on polling day.

Ironically, not long after Australia tore up its deal with the French to build diesel subs in Adelaide, Emmanuel Macron announced that his ­nuclear-powered nation was aiming to build a mini nuclear reactor by 2030 to become a leader in carbon-free power generation.

Who knows, maybe we could even get the French to help build one for us and tidy up that relationship at the same time?